Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sin City

B0jangles wrote: »

You see I'm not viewing this as a hypothetical situation where an imaginary woman is left physically damaged as a result of a pregnancy: My friend's wife has been left permanently disabled as a result of two very difficult pregnancies, the second nearly killed her.

She has been told by her doctors that if she has another child she will almost certainly be left unable to walk for the rest of her life.

If she has a crisis pregnancy you're saying that she should have to go through with it and be left disabled for the rest of her life, rather than have a termination.

That is monstrous.

Im sorry about your expeirence. This has to be seen in a hypothetical sence. As cruel as it may sound you have to view them as imaginary women otherwise "in my opinion" your emotions take over from rationality

B0jangles

Sin City wrote: »

Im sorry about your expeirence. This has to be seen in a hypothetical sence. As cruel as it may sound you have to view them as imaginary women otherwise "in my opinion" your emotions take over from rationality

Dealing with issues like this as pure hypotheticals makes it very easy to ignore the people actually affected.

I think that's why they are so popular with people with hardline black-and-white views.

Imaginary women don't have much to say; they are quite like fetuses in that respect - maybe that's why the anti-choice crowd are so keen on them as opposed to real women and children after birth?

Mardy Bum

Sin City wrote: »

Im sorry about your expeirence. This has to be seen in a hypothetical sence. As cruel as it may sound you have to view them as imaginary women otherwise "in my opinion" your emotions take over from rationality

So real life examples of possible complications and outcomes should not be used when discussing a topic?

Sin City

B0jangles wrote: »

Dealing with issues like this as pure hypotheticals makes it very easy to ignore the people actually affected.

I think that's why they are so popular with people with hardline black-and-white views.

Imaginary women don't have much to say; oddly that's quite similar to 12 week old fetuses - maybe that's why the anti-choice crowd are so keen on them as opposed to real women and children after birth?

Thats hardly a fair comment. Do you think say doctors can view people as people or something else so their emotions wont interfere with their judgements.

It has nothing to do with anyone voicing themselves. Its easy to see the woman there, suffering and emotions takeing over to do whatever can be done to avoid her suffering, thats the natural inclination. But weighing up the ethical issues between both woman and unborn child has to be made bias free

Sin City

Mardy Bum wrote: »

So real life examples of possible complications and outcomes should not be used when discussing a topic?

In my opinion no as they can never be bias free

kylith

Sin City wrote: »

An extreme case , would the.fetus survive if.the.mother dies

In this hypothetical situation, yes. The foetus would survive but the woman would surely die. Should a woman be forced to give her life?

Sin City wrote: »

here lies the dilemma for most . Does the fetus have rights. If it comes down to killing a fetus or comprise the ability of a woman to lead a normal life. In that case if the.fetus can be carried to term.and.it will,be a viable child it is.my opinion that it life trumps impairment

I honestly don't know how I would feel about myself if I knew that my existence had crippled my mother.

Stark

Sin City wrote: »

but if the mother would die and the fetus would live I honestly dont know
Its something I hope I never have to go through. But in that case no matter what you chose you are putting one life before another

And why the **** should the State/law get to decide that the mother should be the one to die? Even Article 4.0.33, bad as it is, acknowledges that mothers also have a right to life.

Mardy Bum

Sin City wrote: »

In my opinion no as they can never be bias free

So statistics should not be used also?

kylith

Mardy Bum wrote: »

So real life examples of possible complications and outcomes should not be used when discussing a topic?

Sin City wrote: »

In my opinion no as they can never be bias free

I guess it's easier to say that it's ok for a woman to have her health ruined when you refuse to look at the people affected by it.

Cosmicfox

If a woman is prepared to die or become seriously disabled during a life threatening pregnancy than that should be her choice alone. No-one should force any woman to go through with that if she doesn't want to.

If she dies because she wasn't allowed a choice it not just her affected, it's also her family and any already born children she leaves behind.

Nodin

Sin City wrote: »

Thats hardly a fair comment. Do you think say doctors can view people as people or something else so their emotions wont interfere with their judgements.

It has nothing to do with anyone voicing themselves. Its easy to see the woman there, suffering and emotions takeing over to do whatever can be done to avoid her suffering, thats the natural inclination. But weighing up the ethical issues between both woman and unborn child has to be made bias free

.....and it's so much easier to protect the unborn idealised foetus, rather than an adult in front of you. Or it is for some at least.

Nodin

Could you highlight today’s press strategy of the Irish conservative control
tower?
David Quinn (top), Iona Institute, in the Irish Independent
criticising the free vote of FF on the grounds of conscience. And Breda O’Brien,
Iona Institute, in the Irish Times criticising FG for their party whip
system on the grounds of conscience

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/08/iona-conscience/?fb_source=pubv1

Talking out both sides of their unlovely gobs....

TheChizler

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/08/iona-conscience/?fb_source=pubv1

Talking out both sides of their unlovely gobs....

But it makes sense because the whip is totally ok when it works in their favour! No contradictions here move on people! :rolleyes:

Turtwig

:eek:

Apparently 30,000 folks took part in the pro-life vigil rally today.

Sarky

I find that unlikely. Linky?

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

I find that unlikely. Linky?

:pac:

Bobby42

Shouldn't their posters really say:

"Keep sending women to England!"

"Pro birth!"

"Not in my backyard, anywhere else is fine though".

"Once pregnant, a woman's life is forfeit".

"Women should be forced to continue with pregnancies regardless of their wishes and the potential consequences".

"I have more of a say than a pregnant woman does".

"Women aren't to be trusted, best to keep abortion banned".

"No suicide clause, women will just make it up".

"Let's just keep pretending Ireland is abortion free and collectively bury our heads in the sand".

_rebelkid

Jernal wrote: »

:pac:

10,000 of whom are under the age of 14
15,000 are over the age of 55
The rest already had enough kids.

Even with free buses and American Pro Birth Dollars...

Sulla Felix

I have to say, as much as I don't like Kenny and whether you agree with his positions on the two matters, but between this and the Senate referendum, he's showing more balls than any political leader in my memory.

Cosmicfox

Do they have these vigils because they want another referendum?

Turtwig

Cosmicfox wrote: »

Do they have these vigils because they want another referendum?

Nope. They don't want a referendum because opinion polls show that they'll likely lose. They're just doing what they do best : lobbying. Stifle the bill until the summer recess and keep forcing politicians to kick the can down the road.

Cosmicfox

Oh right. I know they're against abortion but can just lobbying and organising vigils ever actually stop the legislation going through or are they just hoping to stall and that's it?

Turtwig

Cosmicfox wrote: »

Oh right. I know they're against abortion but can just lobbying and organising vigils ever actually stop the legislation going through or are they just hoping to stall and that's it?

If your lobby is powerful enough yes.
Took from a court case in 1973 until 1993 for contraceptives to be fully legalised in Ireland. 20 years since our first referendum on the X Case. . .

_rebelkid

Jernal wrote: »

Nope. They don't want a referendum because opinion polls show that they'll likely lose.

But what about the Pro birth Life Majority?


*holds up sarcasm sign for people who can't internet*

aloyisious

I'm mindful that the report of the investigation into the circumstances of the death of Savita Halappanavar is to be released within the next week or two (so, being practical and not cynical here) I reckon it was probably thought best by the Pro-Life'ers Committee to have their Protest "Vigil" before that. I'd imagine that those planning the "Vigil" might have thought there'd be less "stomach" for people to attend such a vigil immediately, or close after; the release of the report, with renewed media interest in the fate of Savita.

ironingbored

I've done a (crude) comparison of known 50,000 capacity stadia/squares with the photos posted by prolife:

pic.twitter.com/KwVSQ6i0V6

50,000 seems like a gross exaggeration.

MrPudding

ironingbored wrote: »

I've done a (crude) comparison of known 50,000 capacity stadia/squares with the photos posted by prolife:

pic.twitter.com/KwVSQ6i0V6

50,000 seems like a gross exaggeration.

3657 "Wallys" in Merrion Square, as counted by Guinness (who are reasonably well known for their counting ability), for the world record attempt.



A bit more about it here.

MrP

TheChizler

An appropriate comparison!

TheChizler

In the above linked article, a woman who regretted having abortions said "abortion stole my children". What kind of twisted thinking do you need to come out with that statement? Yes it's awful that she regrets it, but in all likelyhood it was a decision that she had control over. It's an attempt to anthropomorphise (grammar?) a description of an act. It's one step away from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL0r-YoCmuw

At least that statement could be half true.

robindch

Bobby42 wrote: »

"Keep sending women to England!"

That might explain why, when I passed by Merrion Square around two last Saturday afternoon, a northern-registered bus was offloading a busload of elderly people with northern accents.

If Irish legislation forces Irish women to travel to the UK for medical reasons, why shouldn't UK citizens protest in front of the Irish legislature?